When asked to write about workplace adjustments from a neurodivergent perspective, I told myself this time I’d submit it early, this time I’d avoid distractions, committing to starting it immediately. Predictably, my plans failed and I took my regular neurodivergent route, with rest days and detours (aka side quests), before a final sprint landed my article neatly on the editor’s desk on the due date.
Looking back, I wouldn't have it any other way. When I allow myself to work the way that is natural for me, I produce better work, with less depletion and more enjoyment. My side quests often uncover wicked little gold nuggets, insights or shortcuts I never would have found if I’d forced myself down the straight line I keep pretending I’ll take.
Before I share why workplace adjustments are so often misunderstood or denied, even when they are reasonable, low cost, improve productivity, morale and worker wellbeing, and a legal obligation under Australian law, first I want to provide some context.
Context for many neurodivergent people help us orient ourselves within our work, or to read an article with deeper engagement. The same goes for parenthesis (so sorry not sorry). Both enable clarity. nuance, and systems or pattern connections. In this article I’ill use the terms workplace adjustments and accommodations interchangeably, which includes reasonable adjustments under Australian disability law. Similar terms are workplace accommodations and reasonable accommodations.
But first, story time. Once upon a time, there was a tortoise and a hare, racing to cross the finish line first. You know how the story goes, you’ve got the context, so let’s jump right to the moral of the story. We're told we should be like the tortoise, he took the moral path: persistent, a straight line, don’t stop, don’t detour, don’t rest, don’t deviate, and you’ll win. Then you'll be celebrated, job well done.
But for myself, and many neurodivergent people, if we try to be like the tortoise, consistent, linear, even-paced the whole way, we get to the finish line exhausted, burnt out and utterly spent. We did not enjoy the journey, or the celebration (we were home in bed before it even started).
However, if we‘re accommodated to work more like the hare, we can rest when needed, take detours that provide insight and clarity, then sprint when the moment is right. That not only supported us to produce better work, the process also didn’t drain us, so we arrived with capacity for the next race.
Accommodations that support our natural rhythms, energy and sensory needs are what make long-term sustainable contribution possible. What might look like a detour is often where the better idea, more efficient process, creative solution or breakthrough the organisation has been searching for is actually found.
Do we make it across the finish line first? Maybe, maybe not, but did we make it to the finish line in time, or on time? Yes. So why then does it matter what route the hare took to get there? Why does it matter how we managed our time, energy or resources along the journey?
It matters because many managers view the hare’s route, just like in the fable, as “immoral”. From the outside, the tortoise looks “good” because the labour is visible, linear and predictably familiar. The hare, however, looks “risky” because the visible labour is non-linear, harder to predict.
Managers can also confuse “sameness” with “fairness”. Thinking if everyone is doing the same thing in the same way, with the same hours, process, sensory load and pace, then it is fair, predictable and easier to manage. However, if one person is allowed a different route, they read that as an advantage, or simply harder to manage, even when that different route is what makes equal and fair participation possible.
But if the hare’s way can produce equal or better work, with greater long-term contribution, then forcing tortoise behaviour on everyone is clearly not an effective or ethical management style. The gold nugget I uncovered on my side quest this week, also helps explain why workplace adjustments are so often resisted, due to different management styles.
Neurodivergent staff and advocates are usually communicating from a collaborative communication framework, saying here is what is getting in the way and here is how the system could better support me to be more productive without harm. But if that same request is received by a manager using a defensive communication framework, it can be interpreted as threat, unfairness, extra work, or disruption to the team.
In many cases, the manager is trying to hold together the very things they are responsible for: budget, workflow, risk, workplace culture, and their ability to manage the team consistently. But when access needs are not properly understood, supported, or allowed, the result is often underperformance, attrition, greater legal and reputational risk, and damage to the very workplace culture and workflow they were trying to protect.
Workplace adjustments allow people the dignity to reach the finish line in ways that do not unnecessarily deplete or disable them in the process. A tortoise-style system may feel easier to manage, but forcing hares to perform like tortoises causes harm, reducing sustainability and capacity. Supporting adjustments for a hare-style approach may feel uncertain at the start, but if it produces the same or better work, sustainable productivity, and improved staff wellbeing, is that not a win for everyone?
